Sooner Politics.org
  • Front Page
  • Oklahoma News
    • Oklahoma Reports
    • OCPAC
    • Oklahoma Constitution News
    • Citizen of the Year
    • Oklahoma History
    • Today, In History
    • Oklahoma Center Square
    • Faked Out Sports
    • AP Wire
    • NewsBreak Oklahoma
    • Inside the Capitol
    • Lawton Rocks
    • Muskogee Now
    • OSU Sports
  • Podcasts
  • SPTV
    • Fresh Black Coffee, with Eddie Huff
    • AircraftSparky
    • Red River TV
    • Oklahoma TV
    • E PLURIBUS OTAP
    • Tapp's Common Sense
  • Editorial
    • From the Editor
    • Weekend Report
    • 3D Politics
    • Reagan Speaks
  • Sooner Issues
    • Corruption Chronicle
    • Constitutional Grounds
    • State Groups
  • Sooner Analysts
    • OCPA
    • Muskogee Politico
    • Rooke Report
    • SoonerPoll
    • Everett Piper
    • Andrew Spiropoulos
    • Tulsa Devil's Advocate
    • Eddie Huff & Friends
    • 1889 Institute
    • Steve Byas
    • Michael Bates
    • Steve Fair
    • Josh Lewis
    • Tulsa Today
    • OK2A
    • Dr. Jim Meehan
    • AFP Oklahoma
    • Sooner Tea Party
  • Nation
    • Bongino Report
    • Breitbart News
    • Daily wire
    • Steven Crowder
    • InfoWars News
    • Jeff Davis
    • Alex Lains
    • The F1rst
    • Nigel Farage
    • NewsMax
    • America's Voice
    • Ron Paul Institute
    • Bill Gertz
    • Emerald
    • Just the News
    • Trey Gowdy
    • Fox Politics
    • National Commentary
  • Wit & Whimsy
    • Libs of Tiktok
    • It's Still The Law
    • Terrence Williams
    • Witty Cartoons
    • Will Rogers Said
    • Steeple Chasers
    • The Partisan
    • Satire
  • SoonerPolitics.org

Saving Elephants Fifty Conservative Thinkers

4/24/2020

Comments

 
In an age where what passes for the archetype conservative are the likes of Candace Owens, Bill Mitchell, Sean Hannity, Matt Gaetz, Tomi Lahren, and the President, it can be discouraging for those of us who take pride in the rich legacy and colorful history of conservative thinkers. Earlier this week, Gracy Olmstead published a piece in ISI listing over fifty conservative thinkers. Gracy correctly acknowledges the inherent difficulty in compiling a list of conservative thinkers—not the least of which is profound disagreement on what “conservatism” means and who would qualify as a “conservative”. Doubtless, it contains some biased selections on her part from people who have had an impact in shaping her worldview. In that same spirit, I’d like to offer the reader my own list of conservative thinkers well worthy of your time and attention. Earlier this year I produced a list of non-famous Millennial conservatives you should get to know. In contrast, what follows is a listing of established individuals—those who probably have their own Wikipedia page—who are mostly much older than Millennials or now deceased. Disclaimer Perhaps this goes without saying, but I’m going to say it just the same: this list is imperfect and incomplete. If I were to revisit the list next year or possibly even next week, I’m sure there are plenty of names I’d believe should supplant the names here. The names below are not listed in order of preference or importance, but they are all important and preferred. Fifty Conservative Thinkers Economists Milton Friedman – Few economists have endeavored as hard as Friedman to reach out to the rest of us non-economists and explain free market theory in such a winsome and digestible manner. Friedman helped popularize the Chicago school of economics and won a Nobel Prize for his work on understanding the Federal Reserve’s role in the Great Depression. If you haven’t got time to read any of his books, you can find a ton of his public addresses and lectures on YouTube. Wilhelm Röpke – The only person on the list with an umlaut in their name, Röpke was a thoughtful an forceful defender of economy ordered by free prices, free markets, and free people. His writings explore the moral and economic arguments for liberty in the market and its important role not only in human flourishing but in moral development. F.A. Hayek – Though partially famous for his Why I’m Not a Conservative essay, Hayek’s writings have been instrumental in both traditional conservative and libertarian arguments for generations. David Bahnsen – It may be a little unfair to categorize Bahnsen as just an economist, but his work on understanding the role of morality and the Great Recession goes a lot further in addressing Millennial concerns on questions of the viability of capitalism than most of the voices on the Right today. Statesmen Edmund Burke – Most of the names on this list wouldn’t even be here if it weren’t for Burke who’s often considered the Father of Conservatism. His landmark Reflections on the Revolution in France initiated what became known as modern conservatism and his writings—though somewhat difficult to untangle—are still instructive today. Barry Goldwater – Though Goldwater’s views may be more properly labeled as libertarian today, his book The Conscious of a Conservative, 1964 presidential campaign, and prelude to the successful candidacy of Ronald Reagan arguably did more to inculcate conservatism into the Republican party than any other politician of the twentieth century. Ben Sasse – Although he’s been disappointingly quite in the era of Trump, Senator Ben Sasse still holds a special place in my heart for being an articulate advocate for conservative principles and a true forward-thinker seemingly one step ahead of everyone else on the issues we’re likely to face down the road. John Adams – America’s second president and Founding Father John Adams was identified by Russell Kirk as the embodiment of American conservative thought. A voracious reader and writer, Adams wrote more than the other Founders combined on liberty, government, and much more. Historians Bradley J. Birzer – I was thrilled to have Dr. Birzer on my podcast recently to discuss the life and writings of Russell Kirk. Dr. Birzer is a professor at Hillsdale, authority on Russell Kirk, and wears far too many other hats for me to list here. He has a most gregarious personality and eagerness to impart the true, the good, and the beautiful to younger Americans. Matthew Continetti – I know of no other Millennial who comes as close to untangling and explaining the complex web of American conservative history as Continetti. If you’re uncertain what to make of “neoconservatism” or how the traditional and libertarian aspects of the conservative movement all fit together, he’s your man. George Nash – For those who dare to plunge deeply into conservatism’s intellectual history, few historians have offered more reading material than Nash. Stephen J. Tonsor – Unsatisfied with surface-level conversations, Tonsor’s writings dig deep into the nuances of conservative thought and ideas. His writings explore the contributions (and limitations) of classical liberal thought in conservatism. Philosophers Peter Kreeft – A prolific author on subjects from theology to abortion to Biblical literacy to biographies to culture to an entire series on Socrates engaging in modern debates, Kreeft has something for just about everyone. Roger Scruton – With the tragic passing of Sir Roger Scruton earlier this year, we lost who many conservatives considered to be the greatest conservative intellectual living. Personally, I believe that honor goes to the eighty-nine-year-old and still going strong Thomas Sowell, but Scruton was no doubt a legend in his own right. Fortunately, his legacy includes a great many books that will continue to challenge and encourage us in the days to come. Jacques Ellul – Reading Ellul is not for the faint of heart (I don’t claim to understand him half the time), but his foresight on the challenges posed by technology were eerily prophetic. Michael Oakeshott – Speaking of “not for the faint of heart” Oakeshott is a celebrated conservative philosopher whose work is foundational to conservative thought. Allan Bloom – Bloom’s The Closing of the American Mind paved the way for much of the Right’s critique of higher education. Theologians C.S. Lewis – Possibly no one else in this list has had a more personal impact on my thinking and mindset. Lewis was considered by many to be the greatest spokesperson for Christianity in the twentieth century. His popularity remains for two reasons: 1) his writing is very enjoyable to read and 2) much of what he was writing about were challenges he foresaw that have become all the more present to us today. The Abolition of Man is a powerful, amazing book, Mere Christianity is a good place to start, and Til We Have Faces is my personal favorite and the only book to make me weep. G.K. Chesterton – No doubt there are many who would reserve the glowing endorsement I gave to Lewis for Chesterton. Though less known to us today, Chesterton was an equally eloquent and persuasive spokesperson for the Christian faith and worldview amicable to conservative thought. His Orthodoxy is one of the most disarmingly unique works on apologetics I’ve ever encountered. Philologists J.R.R. Tolkien – Since we’re on the subject of British authors, the writings of Tolkien continue to entertain and encourage people to this day. Check out his Leaf by Niggle for a short story on lose, disappointment, redemption, and wonder. Poets Wendell Berry – I’ll be honest: I’m not well read in Wendell Berry. But few people I know are as respected by so many of the people I respect that I feel he is particularly deserving of making my list. T.S. Eliot – As a poet, Eliot often stretched the imagination beyond the sometimes dry, reductive dialogue of the political Right. His politics were infused with notions of humanity’s limitations and capacity for evil. Russell Kirk, who was personal friends with Eliot, credited Eliot as the endcap in his masterpiece The Conservative Mind line-up of conservative thinkers. Journalists Ross Douthat – Refreshingly witty on matters of politics and faith and charitably moderate on the French Ahmari Wars, Douthat is an important voice in contemporary conservatism. He’s widely respected among friends and foes of conservatism alike and provides a certain cheerful seriousness to the debates of today. Irving Kristol – Considered the Father of Neoconservatism, this former socialist, then liberal, and finally Neoconservative found a way to embrace the ideas promulgated on the Right in such a manner that he took legions of other anti-Communist FDR Democrats along. Though some found (and still find) him insufficiently pure in his conservative mindset, his numerous essays are still instructive today and provide a certain pragmatism often lacking in the idealistic. Michael Brendan Dougherty – Senior National Review Online writer Dougherty has consistently produced thoughtful commentary that carefully walks the line between the classical liberal and anti-liberal opposing fronts of the current debates over nationalism, populism, and Lockean liberalism. Jonah Goldberg – Probably the wittiest and most entertaining voice on the Right today, Goldberg has forged an intellectually honest path through the swamp of MAGA Trump-mania and the most radical anti-Trumpers and, in so doing, has helped along many not entirely sure where conservatism goes from here to find their way. His show The Remnant remains my favorite podcast with incredible guests, excellent analysis and insights, hilarity, and nudity that’s (almost) always tasteful. Timothy Carney – Carney’s insights on why parts of the country are thriving while others are falling apart in his book Alienated America does an excellent job shattering the myth of the Left that economic/material equality are all that’s necessary to cure what ails us. David French – If there’s a kerfuffle between conservative intellectual camps these days, you can bet David French will be right in the middle of it. Which is hilarious because—so far as I can tell—he never plans it that way. Reflective and mousy, one would hardly peg David French as the rabble-rouser he’s often portrayed to be. But his stance on drag queen story hour was deemed insufficiently hostile for some and his stance on the Alt-Right during the 2016 elections landed him in a world of hurt among social media trolls. French remains a highly respected voice for both Evangelical and conservative current affairs and is well worth following. George Will – The slightly pompous and verbose George Will has been a stalwart defender of classical conservative ideas for decades. I encountered with him years ago when he was among a line-up of conservative celebrities to speak and—in my humble opinion—blew everyone else out of the water. William F. Buckley – I’ve often credited Buckley with giving modern conservatism the credibility and sensibility it enjoyed in the latter half of the twentieth century. Aside from founding National Review and hosting Firing Line (for over three decades!), Buckley was arguably the national figure most responsible for ridding the Right of the more fanatical, racist, and antagonistic elements of the day. His statesman-like presence has been is sorely missed! Political Theorists Patrick Deneen – Deneen’s controversial book Why Liberalism Failed has been viewed as a condemnation of conservatism by some and an argument for conservatism by others. While I don’t fully endorse all of Deneen’s views, he does represent—in my opinion—the most articulate and thoughtful critique of classical liberalism’s influence on modern conservative thought and we ignore his message at our own peril. Russell Kirk – Dr. Bradley Birzer (listed above) joined me on a recent podcast to discuss our mutual admiration for Russell Kirk. There is simply too much to say about Kirk! He was largely responsible for the development of conservative intellectual thought in the post-WWII era and is considered by many—myself included—to the be Father of American Conservatism. Having written more than the average intelligent adult is likely to read in their lifetime, Kirk left us with a wealth of insight and inspiration. Yuval Levin – Few intellectuals command the respect Levin does on matters of political, social, and cultural theory. From his writings it would appear that few have as firm of a grasp or as deep of an appreciation for the viewpoints of both the Left and Right as Levin. His more recent books are most popular but, personally, I prefer The Great Debate. It helped me understand the divide between the Left and Right better than nearly anything else I’ve encountered. Frank S. Meyer – Though he didn’t coin the term, Meyer is best known for his idea of “fusionism” which argued there was a commonality to be found between the traditional conservative and the libertarian that ran much deeper than a mere alliance of convenience. Few have so carefully balanced the conservative ideas held in tension of authority and liberty. Alexis de Tocqueville – Tocqueville’s celebrated Democracy in America is widely considered to be one of the most insightful books on American government and society. It’s hard to miss Tocqueville’s genius as his ability to observe things that others missed and then express them in a way that we can all so clearly see to be true is second to none. Charles Murray – Murray is one of the most influential social scientists in America. His book Coming Apart clearly lays out the growing division in white America in terms of education, opportunities, and class. Robert D. Putnam – Though he was not the first to make the argument, in many ways Putnam was the first on the scene with the now ubiquitous conservative warning of the damage done by crumbling institutions and social cohesion. His book Bowling Alone shined a light on the dire state of our social capital. Lord Acton – Lord Acton is best known for his most famous observation: “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” But his contributions to classical liberal and conservative thought loom large and his legacy lives on through the Acton Institute. Eric Voegelin – With the possible exception of Burke, Voegelin is often quoted in the writings of many of the other intellectuals and thinkers on this list. His book The New Science of Politics and his philosophy of history contributed much to conservative arguments against radicalism and progressivism. Leo Stauss – It’s hard to overemphasis Strauss’ influence on intellectuals on the Right. His work was instrumental in shaping the thinking of many who would later become the intellectual giants of the Neoconservatism movement. His insights on esoteric writing remains widely studied today. Richard Weaver – Author of the celebrated Ideas Have Consequences, Weaver charts how progress and relativist thinking led to the decline of the West and how ideas can shape the world. Pollsters Kristen Soltis Anderson – One of the leading voices on how young Americans think, Anderson provides copious insights into how the Right and GOP can reach the next generation. Advice that, I’m sad to say, is largely ignored. I’m proud to say she joined my podcast for a bonus episode last year to discuss Millennials and the GOP. Sociologists Robert Nisbet – Decades ahead of the trend of conservative thinkers writing about the importance of social structures and institutions, Nisbet skillfully explains the importance of those intermediary institutions that stand between the individual and the state and the alienation, fear, boredom, and despair that creeps in when they are missing. Arthur Brooks – Former president of AEI, Arthur Brooks has a refreshingly unique way of speaking that disarmingly cuts across partisan divides. His work on what makes humans happy is both intriguing and important. Marian Tupy – Conservatives are often (rightly) accused of being a dreary lot. But there’s nothing dreary about Tupy. His scholarly work in human progress has consistently shown just how fortunate we are to be living when and where we do today and reminds us we have much to not take for granted. Psychologists Jordan Peterson – While he may object to the label “conservative”, Peterson has electrified younger Americans with his unyielding support for freedom of speech. He’s a very insightful speaker and author whose presence on YouTube clips are world-famous. Urban Planners Charles Marohn – I heard Marohn speak in Tulsa several years back and was blown away by his insightful and important message of sensible, contemplative urban development. Marohn has a conservative attitude (I do not know if he would object to being labeled a conservative) that cuts across partisan divides and gets a the heart of what makes economic, practical, and even rational sense in how we structure the cities and towns we inhabit. People who accomplished so many different things I dare not put them in a single category Frederick Douglass – The famed abolitionist fought for a world free from slavery, racism, and bigotry. His journey from slavery to success is inspiring and his speeches are both convicting and encouraging. Martin Luther King Jr. – Much like Thomas Jefferson or Abraham Lincoln, King looms so large in the minds and affections of the American people that the Left, Right, and everything in-between often claim him as their own. But King’s ideas of order and authority—particularly as expressed in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail—are squarely in line with conservative thought. Thomas Sowell – Someone needs to remind Sowell that he retired a couple of years ago as the man is still cranking out books! One of the last living conservative giants—by my lights—Sowell has written important and insightful books covering economics, history, sociology, culture, and politics to name but a few. He straddles the line between your traditional Burkean/Kirkean conservative and the Neocon variety in a manner that’s truly unique (Sowellean?). If you haven’t read any Sowell do yourself a favor and pick up whichever of his books looks the most intriguing and get to reading. Do you agree with my list? Did I miss someone you believe deserves to be mentioned? Did I include someone you feel shouldn’t have made the cut? Let me know what you think. #50conservativethinkers
Fifty Conservative Thinkers, Read this full article, at Saving Elephants, with Josh Lewis
Comments

Saving Elephants Episode 57 Russell Kirk Eccentric Genius with Bradley Birzer

4/21/2020

Comments

 
Russell Kirk contributed more to modern American conservatism than arguably anyone else! Yet few who call themselves conservative today are familiar with the name “Kirk”—unless they’re referring to Charlie Kirk, the founder of Turning Point USA. No offense to Charlie but comparing him to Russell is like comparing the works of William Shakespeare to whatever the last thing Bill Mitchell tweeted. Who was Russell Kirk? Why is he considered the father of American conservatism? What did he do that was so important? Does his message hold value for conservatives today? Why has his legacy been largely forgotten? Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis is joined by Bradley Birzer to answer these questions and more about this woefully underappreciated, unusually eccentric, and highly ingenious thinker from the twentieth century whose prolific writings still have much to say to us about the nature of conservatism in the twenty-first century. But aside from all that, Kirk is just a fascinating individual who wrote more than the average intelligent adult will read in their lifetime and was far more comfortable with mysticism, levitation, and cultish practices than you’d ever expect of someone considered the father of American conservatism! About Dr. Bradley J. Birzer Bradley J. Birzer, Ph.D. is a professor of history at Hillsdale where he is the Russell Amos Kirk Chair in American Studies and Fellow of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library. He is the co-founder, editor at large, and senior contributor of The Imaginative Conservative, an on-line journal for those who seek the True, the Good, and the Beautiful, addressing culture, liberal learning, politics, political economy, literature, the arts, and the American Republic. Dr. Birzer also serves on the boards of the Free Enterprise Institute and The Center for Cultural Renewal and is a Fellow with the Foundation for Economic Education, Intercollegiate Studies Institute, The McConnell Center, and the Center for Economic Personalism (Brazil). Dr. Birzer is author of several books, including: In Defense of Andrew Jackson, American Cicero: The Life of Charles Carroll, Sanctifying the World: The Augustinian Life and Mind of Christopher Dawson, J.R.R. Tolkien’s Sanctifying Myth: Understanding Middle-Earth, co-editor of The American Democrat and Other Political Writings by James Fenimore Cooper, and co-author of The American West. He is also the author of Russell Kirk: American Conservative, and is considered an authority on the life of Russell Kirk. He and his wife (also Dr. Birzer) have seven children and divide their time between Michigan and Colorado.
Episode 57 – Russell Kirk, Eccentric Genius with Bradley Birzer, Read this full article, at Saving Elephants, with Josh Lewis
Comments

Saving Elephants How does a Conservative differ from a Radical? Part 3 (Instinctual Worldviews)

4/17/2020

Comments

 
Within the human species are two seemingly contradictory natural impulses: the desire to change and the desire to keep things as they are. While these competing impulses are easily observable in mundane, everyday life they also provide much of the impetuous for complex political worldviews. And nowhere is this more easily observed than in the conservative and the radical. Conservatives are concerned we will not recognize the good things we have and, in taking them for granted, lose them. As the philosopher Sir Roger Scruton put it, “conservatism starts from a sentiment that all mature people can readily share: the sentiment that good things are easily destroyed, but not easily created.” Conversely, radicalism also begins with a perfectly respectable sentiment: the concern we will accept things as they are and, in so doing, will not take action to change what we should. Inverting Scruton’s summary, we could also say that all mature people agree bad things are not easily destroyed and multiply when we don’t tend to them. Both sentiments are reasonable, and both are quite natural. But that is not the same as saying both are equally good or equally problematic. If all we mean by conservative is a resistance to change, one could make an argument that both sentiments can lead to equally destructive folly (indeed, the economist F. A. Hayek used this definition of conservatism to make that exact argument in his famous essay Why I Am Not a Conservative.) Certainly, there are times change is justifiable and desirable—something we’ll explore in Part 4—but for our purposes here, we’re interested in whether these natural sentiments—these gut impulses of a desire to change and a resistance to change—are equally problematic in our political endeavors. And to that question I am firmly on the side that says we are almost always better off tapping into our impulse to keep things as they are than to embrace calls for change. As Abraham Lincoln both asked and answered in his Cooper Union Address: “What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried?” The conservative believes that the “default” position ought always to be the tried and true over the latest innovations of the radical. Infatuated Innovators “Joining a radical movement when one is young is very much like falling in love when one is young,” wrote Irving Kristol. “The girl may turn out to be rotten, but the experience of love is so valuable it can never be entirely undone by the ultimate disenchantment.” This was hardly theoretical for Kristol for he describes his own political journey as winding from “youthful socialism, through a long period of ever more skeptical and self-critical liberalism, to something that became known as ‘neoconservatism’”. The passions of youth can easily give way to overly optimistic, idealistic, or even utopian political persuasions. This would at least partially explain why the more radical elements of political parties—whether they’re libertarian free-market purists like Ron Paul or social democrats like Bernie Sanders—enjoy a disproportional support among the young. I don’t mean to imply that all political movements that are disproportionally represented by the young are immaturely wrong—only that movements that possess more passion, zeal, and novelty are more likely to attract the young than movements that are restrained, contemplative, and not given to lofty promises. After all, the very nature of youth is given to passion, zeal, and innovation over the old and “boring”. To be fair, justification for joining any form of radicalism is rarely—if ever—couched in terms of how very much not boring it’s going to be. That sentiment may be undergirding things, but the justification is expressed in moral, utilitarian, or pragmatic terms. We are told we simply cannot wait for alternatives or compromising efforts, that the situation is so unfair, or apocalyptic, or dire that time is of the essence and we cannot stop to question whether alternative views should be consulted, or whether possible trade-offs should be considered, or whether there are unintended consequences, or whether caution would be prudent. I can’t help but think this is the kind of attitude Edmund Burke had in mind when he wrote of moderation being a virtue, “not only amiable but powerful. It is a disposing, arranging, conciliating, cementing virtue…to dare to be fearful when all about you are full of presumption and confidence.” It is a great irony that those among us who have the most time ahead of them—the young—are most easily caught up in radical notions that there is simply no time left to wait. Let me pause here again and say that this does not mean there aren’t genuine causes that demand immediate action or that complacency is combated with certain degree of urgency. It may even be true that these natural impulses have a certain evolutionary advantage in keeping the species prone to adaptation and innovation. But it does not follow we must or even should ignore the impact of these natural tendencies. It doesn’t mean we ought not to seek to understand how they ought to be applied or how they may work against our deeper interests. In Yuval Levin’s book The Great Debate he argues that Edmund Burke was deeply troubled by these natural impulses: “Men are by nature drawn to novelty and excitement, Burke worries, and only by being stirred by the beauty of the given can they see its advantages and so be appropriately skeptical and cautious about overturning it. The old and tried model will not always work, of course, but when it fails, societies would be wise to fix it by gradually building on what does work about it rather than by starting fresh with an untried idea…It is human nature to lose sight of the value of what we possess and be taken instead with the potential of what we imagine possible.” To meet the challenge of the natural impulse to change, Burke would have us cultivate our impulse to stay the course. Cultivating Conservation “Conservatism proper is a legitimate, probably necessary, and certainly widespread attitude of opposition to drastic change,” wrote F. A. Hayek in his essay Why I Am Not a Conservative. Hayek was objecting to the mere gut reaction to simply oppose change while simultaneously acknowledging its potential merits. Juxtaposed with our natural cravings for the new and exciting is our natural discomfort with change. In its base form, this is little better than a curmudgeonly stubborn attitude about keeping things as they are. But this natural tendency can be cultivated to grow into gratitude and cautious contemplation. Irving Kristol observed that the nature of a free society with a thriving middle class often brought out a certain conservative impulse against radicalism: “Property-owning democracy tends to breed its own antibodies. These antibodies immunize it, in large degree, against the lunacies of its intellectuals and artist. The common people in such a democracy are not uncommonly wise, but their experience tends to make them uncommonly sensible. They learn their economics by taking out a mortgage, they learn their politics by watching the local school board in action, and they learn the impossibility of ‘social engineering’ by trying to raise their children to be decent human beings.” One might be tempted to conclude that the property-owning middle class can “afford” to be “conservative” because they are happily—perhaps selfishly—safe and secured in their ideal situation. But the poor, disenfranchised, and marginalized are left to fight the injustices of “the system”. Indeed, radicals are often motivated by calls of alleviating the suffering of the poor and impoverished (much to the chagrin of the poor and impoverished). As Kristol observed of the poor: “[They] never make revolutions. They are made by professors and students and intellectuals in the name of the poor.” Radical Love Kristol’s observation warrants dwelling on a bit longer. Radical politicians like Bernie Sanders have been able to ignite a powerful following that most political leaders could only dream of. Many a Democrat has “felt the Bern” with promises of canceling all student debt, radically expanding entitlement programs, and housing, medicare, and childcare for all. It’s no small wonder someone promising his supporters debt cancelation and free this, free that would be “popular”. But is that all there is to it? Is the promise of free stuff what drove multitudes out to Sander’s campaign events? Was the prospect of having one’s debt canceled truly what led Sander’s supporters to go beyond loyalty to something that looked a lot more like—how did Kristol say it?—falling in love when one is young? That notion is absurd on its face. What we witnessed in Sander’s groundswell of support was not greedy or desperate people hoping he’d make good on those promises so that they could get on in life. No, what we saw was something with all the irrationality, and passion, and emotional volatility, and inability to accept rejection or “settle” for someone else that we might expect from young, star-crossed lovers. The power of radicalism is that it taps into our romantic passions. Bernie supporters may have been excited about what a Sanders administration might mean for their financial wellbeing, but they were positively giddy about what it might mean for “the poor” or “the homeless” or “the 99%”. It was never about the money; it was about the idea of righting some perceived injustice. Bernie was leading a movement that was going to bring about the sort of world his supporters believed in their hearts was truly best. And that pull to join such a movement can be insatiable. “It is not poverty that induces the masses to support totalitarian parties,” wrote Russell Kirk, “but the longing for certitude and membership.” What gives radicals like Sanders power is not the desperately poor demanding justice but those alienated from membership with those who fight for “justice”. This doesn’t mean that justice isn’t worth pursuing—far from it—but that we should be mindful of our own natural impulses to blindly seek out the radical solution. When radicals make promises that speak to our heart’s desire to belong we should be—how did Burke put it?—"fearful when all about you are full of presumption and confidence.” But let’s not overcorrect in our efforts to avoid the pitfalls of radicalism. A misplaced crusade for justice is no worse than a failure to fight for justice. It’s not enough to simply recognize our natural impulses and try to reign them in if we haven’t a clue what direction we should be going in the first place. If true conservatism is something more than merely opposing change for the sake of “conserving”, then what and when and how do we change? That is where we’ll pick things up in Part 4.
How does a Conservative differ from a Radical? Part 3 (Instinctual Worldviews), Read this full article, at Saving Elephants, with Josh Lewis
Comments

Saving Elephants Procuring Toilet Paper with Social Capital

4/10/2020

Comments

 
Earlier this month Beverly Hills police found nearly two hundred rolls of toilet paper in a stolen SUV. The suspect was arrested and charged with multiple crimes—none of which had to do with the toilet paper, which, so far as police knew, wasn’t stolen. But desperate times call for desperate measures, and it’s not difficult to imagine a car theft might also be hocking commodities with ever-growing resale value on the side. With a record-breaking number of Americans filing for unemployment, it’s no small wonder that those struggling to get by might resort to stealing hot toiletries such as TP. But when times are tough and one is depleted of the economic capital to acquire things like toilet paper and isn’t cool with stealing, there is another resource we might draw upon: social capital. What is Social Capital? Social capital is a complex idea and no universal definition exists. But for our purposes here, let’s think of social capital as the web of networks and relationships we possess that can provide us with certain benefits, resources, knowledge, or even emergency rolls of toilet paper when called upon. As Jonah Goldberg is fond of saying on his podcast The Remnant, if he were to lose his house and all the money he had that wouldn’t make him homeless because he would still have a massive number of family and friends to turn to who would be willing to have him sleep on their couch. While our first line of defense against the cares of life are often met by our economic capital, social capital is an excellent “safety net” should things go wrong. What’s more, sometimes a little bit of social capital can go much further than a lot of economic capital. The college I attended and the profession I entered were due in large part to a lot of moxie, cleverness, and hard work on my part. But none of it would have even been possible had it not been for the social network of friends and family carefully developed over the years. The amount of cash it would have taken to try to make a way for myself with no assistance from anyone else would have simply been unattainable for me. I would hope the implications of depleted stockpiles of social capital in this unprecedented era of national quarantines, social distancing, and record unemployment are staggeringly obvious. There are, of course, far greater concerns than an adequate supply of toilet paper on hand. For most of us, relying on our economic capital alone to get through however long this season lasts would be devastating. We need one another. Now more than ever. How I Procured Toilet Paper with Social Capital I don’t often talk about my personal life on Saving Elephants, but a brief glimpse into the past several years might make the point I’m trying to get across a little clearer. My girlfriend and I had already adopted many of the practices now common to so many households years ago due to her chronic condition. Her medical needs are, at times, severe and unpredictable. As such, we had to learn to adapt by slowly—sometimes painfully—building a strong network of family and friends we could rely upon who understood the situation and were able to help in a moment’s notice with all the flexibility, care, and know-how our unique situation demanded in the moment. It wouldn’t be right to say that the events over the past month haven’t been an adjustment for us. But—compared to many—we had far less “adjusting” to do. As it became evident the COVID-19 pandemic was more than just a hoax concocted by the liberal media to bring down Donald Trump, we received calls and texts from friends and relatives who were aware of our situation and wanted to know if we were in need of anything. I happened to mention to someone that we were somewhat low on toilet paper and, not knowing when stores would be able to restock their shelves, I asked that if they just happened to see any while shopping to pick some up for us. In truth, I wasn’t particularly concerned about it. The toiletry giant Kimberly-Clark has one of its largest manufacturing plants just South of Tulsa where I live—no joke!—so it seemed like the greater Tulsa area was in an excellent position to weather the Great TP Drought of 2020 better than most of the country. Nevertheless, a few days later a nine-pack of the coveted rolls of TP arrived on my doorstep. Evidently the person I was talking to just happened to mention it to someone else who took it upon themselves to drop off some of their personal stash. The following day a relative called and asked if I was in need of some extra rolls they had on hand. They were not aware I had already been gifted a nine-pack based on some offhanded comment I made the day before. I do not know if the SUV theft we were introduced to above also had to steal that toilet paper. But I was able to procure the scarce resource without resorting to thievery, burning through economic capital, or spending hours shopping at every retailer in Tulsa. And it was all because of my stockpile of social capital. How Social Capital Works with the Government Last week I wrote a piece contemplating what conservatism might tell us about the wisdom of Congress spending $2.2 trillion on COVID-19 relief efforts. Regardless of whether you believe it was the right thing to do, there is no doubt millions of Americans are hurting financially and could use the monetary relief. But while the government is doling out $1,200 to each of us, some could be waiting for months to receive the relief, even as late as August. If it were up to the government to ensure we all had adequate supplies of toilet paper, many of us would be cutting up our bedsheets by now. The easiest boogeyman to direct our ire towards in most situations is “the government” and I don’t want to just reach for that low-hanging fruit. The point is not that the government is unduly incompetent, inept, wasteful, incapable, or untimely. There certainly is room for improvement, but let’s get real and ask—in all seriousness—should we actually expect the government to be capable of acting with the nimbleness required in a situation like this? The government might excel at single-purpose endeavors like fighting a war or locking down a country facing a deadly pandemic. But is it reasonable to think they’d ever be equipped to know exactly how many rolls of toilet paper Josh Lewis needed on any given Tuesday to meet the demands of his rather unique circumstances? What might have taken an army of bureaucrats much of the year and enough money to buy every American their own bidet most of us can accomplish by working together, being neighborly, sacrificing some conveniences, building close connections, and turning to one another in times of crisis like these. The great American observer Alexis de Tocqueville wrote about this peculiar tendency that was once far more prevalent among Americans: “When a private individual meditates an undertaking, however directly connected it may be with the welfare of society, he never thinks of soliciting the co-operation of the Government, but he publishes his plan, offers to execute it himself, courts the assistance of other individuals, and struggles manfully against all obstacles. Undoubtedly he is often less successful than the State might have been in his position; but in the end the sum of these private undertakings far exceeds all that the Government could have done.” There are many things we cannot do by pulling together on the individual and communal levels; things like fighting a war, addressing climate change, stopping a pandemic. But, as Tocqueville noted centuries ago, the sum total of all those individuals willing to lean into the problem and work with one another—cultivating a growing reserve of social capital—often far exceeded what the government alone was able to accomplish. Governments fight wars, but they depend upon their citizens to pull together on the home front, holding up morale and sacrificing resources needed for the war effort. In the same manner, while the government is busily researching treatments for COVID-19, coordinating the distribution of needed masks, tests, and other medical supplies, and providing directives and information to the public, all of those efforts would come to naught if not for the cooperation, sacrifice, innovation, and determination of all of us. What Conservatives Tell Us About Social Capital Over the past several decades, and in recent years in particular, conservative writers, thinkers, bloggers, and policy advocates have been relentlessly warning of the potential devastating effects of our increasingly depleted stockpile of social capital. From Robert Nisbet’s 1953 Quest for Community to Robert Putnam’s 2001 Bowling Alone to Yuval Levin’s recently published A Time to Build, conservatism has been producing a rich exploration into what ails the contemporary soul. (As a brief aside, the YouTuber Political Juice has done a fantastic job cataloguing and sharing many of the most prominent works on the topic in his series the importance of civil society.) Sometimes it’s hard to realize that something’s missing until you reach for it and it isn’t there. After we’ve dealt with the immediate threat of COVID-19 and the financial hardships afflicting millions of Americans, there will be much time for reflecting, rebuilding, and restoring what was lost. In the aftermath, perhaps some will make efforts to build lasting social capital that could have otherwise buoyed them in this time. Perhaps some will realize how important the social capital that currently have truly is. It’s hard to predict that any “good” will come of all this, but hardships can yield much good if they’re not wasted. While conservatives are staunch defenders of the individual, they are also cognizant that no man is an island and that we need one another to survive and thrive—even if it’s not so obvious when things are going well. And when life gets crazy and you reach for that last roll of toilet paper, it’s nice to know there’s someone out there who’s got your back.
Procuring Toilet Paper with Social Capital, Read this full article, at Saving Elephants, with Josh Lewis
Comments

Saving Elephants Episode 56 Environmental Conservatism with Danielle Butcher

4/7/2020

Comments

 
Conservative Millennials who came of age listening to rightwing radio hosts such as Rush Limbaugh probably associate political conversations about the environment with the likes of Al Gore railing against global warming and sundry other Environmentalist Wacko warnings of environmental apocalyptic doom. Much of what the Right had to say about environmental concerns was that they were frequently overblown and often used by the Left as an excuse to bring about their calls for central planning. But as younger Americans have come of age, there’s growing concern on the Right about a whole host of environmental concerns from conservation to endangered species to event climate change. The late conservative philosopher Sir Roger Scruton noted that “there is no conceivable chance that the conservative defense of property will gain converts among the young without the attempt to show that it is not state control but private ownership that will save the planet from human waste.” If conservatism hopes to survive and adapt, it must find a what to answer the challenge of environmental concerns in a way that’s not hostile to the free market and limited government. Fortunately, there are growing voices on the Right who claim conservatives can do just that.And among the most prominent of those voices spring from a group of young Americans who make up the American Conservation Coalition: a nonprofit organization dedicated to educating and empowering conservatives to re-engage on environmental conversations.ACC Chief Operating Officer and Executive Vice President Danielle Butcher joins Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis to discuss the work ACC is doing, how conservatives can impact the environment for the better and—shudder—the threat of climate change. About Danielle Butcher Danielle Butcher is a nonprofit executive who aides organizations in developing and implementing their national strategies. Danielle currently serves as Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of the American Conservation Coalition and on the Advisory Board of the British Conservation Alliance, where she merges her love of leadership with her passions for free-markets and the environment. Danielle was recently named to 2020’s Forbes 30 Under 30 list. She has spoken at several prominent conservative events including CPAC, appeared as a frequent guest on NPR and Fox News Radio, and has had her work featured in publications such as The Times, The Hill, The Washington Examiner, VOX, and more. With her work prior to ACC, she served in leadership roles at various conservative nonprofits and organizations. Danielle attended Bethel University in Saint Paul, Minnesota, where she studied Political Science and Rhetoric Communications.
Episode 56 – Environmental Conservatism with Danielle Butcher, Read this full article, at Saving Elephants, with Josh Lewis
Comments

Saving Elephants How Should Conservatives React to a $2.2 Trillion Relief Bill?

4/3/2020

Comments

 
All told, you are currently indebted over $400,000 to the government. And your liability has only increased now that Congress added another $2,200,000,000,000.00 to the national debt. As news came last week that the Senate passed 96 to 0—the remaining four Senators were not present—a $2.2 trillion bill to provide economic relief for those impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, one could be forgiven for questioning the fiscal feasibility of increasing—ahem—your financial burden by such an eye-popping amount. Historically, the Republican party has positioned itself as stalwart deficit hawks, always casting a wary eye against runaway spending and ever-mounting debt. In reality, the GOP has been better in rhetoric on the national debt and spending than in actually doing anything about it. Ever since the dawn of Trump—whose administration is poised to add another $8,300,000,000,000.00 to the national debt—the GOP has even dropped much of the rhetoric. Now both parties treat the issue as that thing we don’t actually take seriously. And why should they? The voters certainly don’t seem to be taking the matter seriously. While Republicans elected one of the very few candidates in 2016 to promise not to touch entitlement spending—which makes up nearly 70% of the Federal budget and continues to grow—the Democratic candidates of 2020 were consistently one-upping one another in who could offer the biggest chicken-in-every-pot cash giveaways. But the fact that so few seem bothered by the national debt doesn’t change the reality of the matter: sooner or later, the bills must be paid. And, while it is possible we may find a way to set our fiscal house in order with minimal wailing and gnashing of teeth, it is also possible the long term impacts will be catastrophic; even civilization-ending. What might conservatism tell us about the predicament we find ourselves in? Was it right for the government to spend so much money trying to combat the effects of the coronavirus? Would it have been better to simply do nothing and let the free market sort things out? Doesn’t governmental interference in the market always lead to unintended consequences that are often worse than the very problems the interference is attempting to solve? A Three-Part Test for Determining Whether Government Should Get Involved My friend Avi Woolf wrote an excellent piece for The Bulwark last year in which he argued that when the question should the government help? is asked, “Progressives will always say ‘yes.’ Libertarians will always say ‘no.’” What then, does the conservative say? According to Avi, the answer is almost always “It depends.” The conservative does not view government as the answer to every problem—far from it!—but they also acknowledge that the government is uniquely suited to provide for certain needs or perform certain tasks that individuals or other organizations often cannot do on their own. Governments are very good at single-purpose endeavors that require massive amounts of resources and manpower, whereas the free market is ideal for meeting multi-purpose needs and desires. The government can allocate resources to build houses, but the free market can provide housing to meet the multitude of unique needs, circumstances, personal preferences, and affordability of the population at large. The most obvious example where government is needed is fighting a war. Which is why the U.S. military is phenomenal at toppling enemy governments (a single-purpose endeavor) but not at nation building with its complex web of feuding tribal grievances and distribution of key resources. Sometimes the challenges we face are not so easily divided into things the government is ideally suited to do and things they are not and truth is somewhere in the murky middle. To aid us in the decision-making process, Avi offers a three-part test to determine if a conservative would be inclined to say that the government should be involved in the solution: First, there’s the matter of prescription. Conservatives have a bias towards the tried and true methods of doing things. Before insisting the government should be involved, we ought first to examine all the reasons the government has not been involved up until this point. Unless there’s compelling reasons to believe an innovative change would be better than leaving things alone, the conservative opts for the latter. For a deep-dive into how prescription guides the conservative, check out my blog series on the matter. “The next test which your idea must meet is often called subsidiarity or federalism,” Avi writes, “The idea that government should handle things at its lowest possible level—city/county, state, and then federal.” What the most local level of government may lack in sophistication and resources they often more than make up for in accountability to the voter and the ability to truly understand the nature of the problem on an individual level. Problems should only be passed further up the chain when the local government is incapable of handling the situation. Lastly, the conservative subjects ideas to the principle of prudence, which means taking the time to carefully think through the likely long-term consequences of an action and deciding whether those consequences outweigh the good we hope to achieve. Sure, we could allocate billions to build houses. But could that money be better spent elsewhere? And would the benefit of the added housing outweigh any distortions to the market or limitations to the individual’s ability to make their own decisions on how to spend the money themselves? For what it’s worth, I also wrote a series on the principle of prudence for a closer look at why it’s important. Applying the Three-Part Test What does Avi’s “test” tell us about the $2.2 trillion CARES Act (the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act)? Does it pass the test of prescription? Certainly, there is precedence for the government intervening to protect the public’s health and welfare. But does that justify the rather unprecedented efforts by the government to shut down American businesses, cancel public events, ban meetings of more than ten people, encourage social distancing and staying at home, and spend a record amount trying to offset the hit to the economy? Let’s venture further. What about subsidiarity? If it was right for the government to get involved, could it have been handled at a more local level? This is the easiest of the three-part test to pass. Pandemics are like wars; they are not something each individual can easily combat without the combined resources of a central government. Nor are they something that the state and local governments can handle on their own. In the event of a highly contagious illness that endangers the nation at large, every level of government must work together to ensure a constant and consistent flow of information, resources, and directives. Finally, there’s the matter of prudence. And here is where the rubber meets the road. In order to determine if the passage of the bill passes the test of prudence, we need to know a great deal about highly complex subjects from fiscal policy to economics to hospital capacity across the country to medical treatments to the nature of the virus itself. We would need to be able to understand the likely risks of doing nothing and measure them against the likely outcomes of doing any one of a seemingly endless array of alternative responses. While there are plenty of social media armchair generals willing to audaciously declare that they know precisely what ought to be done, I must confess I am not an expert in any one of the highly complex fields of study touched by this question. We have arrived at the most difficult of the three tests because we are unlikely to be in a position to clearly know what prudence would suggest. We are asked to have faith in the people and institutions that are operating with limited information and attempting to balance conflicting interests, even if they do possess more than a modicum of knowledge in the various fields of study. In other words, it seems reasonable to say that the government should do something to combat the negative economic impact created by its own policies that have put many Americans out of work and created economic devastation in an effort to combat a global pandemic. But precisely how much is enough, too much, or too little is something we don’t yet have enough information to actually know, let alone reach national consensus. Ideally, we would have fully functioning institutions and widespread trust in our public officials so that our gut reaction in situations like this isn’t suspicion and outrage but calm confidence that they are tirelessly working on our behalf to do the best they can with limited resources and information. Lacking that, it is all the more important we keep a cool head about the situation and take care not to add to the confusion. Mixing Our Metaphors Sometimes it can be helpful to reduce these complex matters down to a word or metaphor. And sometimes the word or metaphor we choose does more to confuse than clarify. Since a massive Federal spending effort to combat recession has familiar overtones to the 2008 housing market crisis, it is not surprising that many have adopted similar language to describe the government’s activities here. Namely, this is being called a “stimulus” or a “bailout”. For comparison’s sake, the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) of 2008 costs $700 billion which was followed by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 costing closer to $800 billion. Both bills were often referred to as a “stimulus” or “bailout”, but they were hardly the same thing. Governmental expenditures intended to address some economic concern can take many forms. A stimulus bill is intended to “stimulate” the economy by injecting cash into a typically wide range of business sectors. Barack Obama’s nearly $800 ARRA spending might be called a stimulus bill since it was intended to counter the effects of the Great Recession. The Obama administration’s subsequent efforts to prevent the collapse of American automakers might be called bailouts. Here the aim wasn’t so much to indiscriminately strengthen businesses and turn the economy around, but a cash infusion to companies who, it was argued, would cease operations without some outside intervention. While the $700 billion spent under the Bush administration on TARP might be called a bailout of the banking industry, the intent was not so much to “save” the banks themselves but to prevent the collapse of America’s financial foundation. If the automakers were to collapse the impact would be terrible—leaving hundreds of thousands out of work and making it all the harder for the economy to recover. If the financial system collapsed the effects could be catastrophic, leaving businesses in every industry—include automakers—without the necessary capital and credit to operate and making recovery nearly impossible. Those on the right can—and often do—disagree on whether interventions like TARP were warranted, though they are more or less united in insisting the Obama era stimulus and bailouts were ineffective and didn’t pass the test of prudence. But regardless of where we come down on the propriety of these interventions, it would do us well to apply labels appropriately. To that end, the $2.2 trillion CARES bill is not a stimulus or a bailout or even an attempt to save the financial sector from collapse. It is a relief bill. As Jonah Goldberg put it in a recent G-File: “This isn’t a stimulus bill, it’s a life-support bill. It’s the difference between cocaine and oxygen, or between a shot of adrenaline and a blood transfusion. I think it was Larry Summers who first compared what we’re doing to putting the economy in a medically induced coma. Induced comas—if I know my medical TV-drama lingo—are sometimes necessary to protect the brain from certain threats. But there’s no point in inducing a coma if you don’t keep the person on life support in some way. We’re not trying to stimulate the economy. We’re trying to keep it on life support while we ride out this pandemic. The stimulus part comes later.” A relief bill is certainly nothing new—albeit, we’ve never had a relief bill of this magnitude. But the basic principle applies: individuals are suffering the effects, through no fault of their own, from some natural or uncontrolled phenomenon and the government is offering assistance. We see similar assistance being offered when a hurricane ravages the coastline, or when a tornado devastates a town. Only, in this case, the government ordered the hurricane, presumably to prevent an even more catastrophic event. Was This the Right Thing to Do? Does “conservatism” tell us this was the right thing to do? Did we pass Avi’s three-part test? I am inclined to say “yes”. But it’s a soft yes, and I don’t take for granted there are other conservatives who could apply the same “test” and reach entirely different conclusions. The Editors of National Review recently gave the legislation a tepid endorsement with plenty of caveats: “The legislation should be judged on whether it aids efforts to slow the spread of coronavirus, aids the treatment of the infected, relieves the plight of those adversely affected by it and the fight against it, and supports the overall economy. These purposes, as we noted at the outset of this debate, sometimes overlap and sometimes conflict. They also call for placing speed ahead of efficiency, and both ahead of mere partisan objectives.” “The legislation is far from perfect. The enormous spending involved would be easier to stomach if legislators and presidents had shown greater restraint before this crisis hit or showed any interest in getting the national debt on a sustainable trajectory. But we will take our own advice. The support for business, the relief for individuals, and the expansion of medical capacity are all urgent matters. They justify a bill that, in a happier time, nobody would consider, and we ourselves would vehemently reject.” Part of that second paragraph bears repeating: conservatives may be less wary about this legislation if it weren’t for the government’s addiction to deficit spending. The bigger issue—the one conservatives ought to be focused on most—isn’t this particular expenditure. Life is unpredictable, and there will always be black swan events that necessitate—or, at least, seem to necessitate—these large deficit expenditures. The real issue is that we learn to live within our means during all those other times when life is stable and predictable. If a family member facing some medical emergency ran out of cash because their father had a gambling addiction and blew it all trying to win big, the real financial problem isn’t the out-of-nowhere medical expense, but the inability to be responsible when it didn’t seem to matter all that much. There may come a day when we all agree that some massive relief bill is warranted and the money simply isn’t there.
How Should Conservatives React to a $2.2 Trillion Relief Bill?, Read this full article, at Saving Elephants, with Josh Lewis
Comments

Saving Elephants Bonus Episode Leading Questions from Left to Right

4/1/2020

Comments

 
Saving Elephants turns two years old this April Fools Day—no joke!—and we’re celebrating with a bonus episode. Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis recently appeared in the guest line-up on Calvin Moore’s Leading Questions podcast. Leading Questions hosts Calvin, Kent, and Steve sit down with Millennials Kelly Cleaver (representing the political Left) and Josh Lewis (representing the Right) to discuss the major differences between Republicans and Democrats, whether progressivism or moderation is the winning ticket, reactions to “the other guy” getting a political victory, political pragmatism, and what the major issues are in the 2020 election cycle.
Bonus Episode – Leading Questions from Left to Right, Read this full article, at Saving Elephants, with Josh Lewis
Comments
    Picture

    Josh Lewis
    ​Saving elephants

    Featuring original content on classical conservatism, current affairs, and everything in-between, these weekly blog posts will illustrate how the wisdom of the past can be applied to the challenges of today.  The blog is organized by the following categories: Conservative Values (taking a deep dive into specific conservative ideas), Competing Worldviews (comparing and contrasting conservatism with other worldviews), Trumpism (posts related to the Trump phenomenon), Elections (observations on upcoming and past elections), and Cornucopia (posts that don't fit in the previous categories).

    Archives

    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

​FRONT PAGE •  OKLAHOMA NEWS • EDITORIAL • SOONER ISSUES •​ STATE GROUPS •​ SOONER ANALYSTS •​ LAWMAKER'S JOURNAL •​ NATION •​ NATIONAL COMMENTARY •​ CARTOONS •​ ​
Picture

918 . 928 . 7776

 SoonerPolitics.org is committed to informing & mobilizing conservative Oklahomans for civic reform & restored liberty. We seeks to utilize the efforts of all cooperative facets of the Conservative movement... Content of the diverse columns are solely at the discretion of the dozens of websites who create the content.   David Van Risseghem  is the founder of this platform.
 Sooner Politics News is a platform, not a media site. All our bloggers get their feeds promoted regardless of content. As soon as We suppress or delete even one posting, we become an endorser of whatever We didn't censor..The publisher doesn't (and could not) logically agree with all the content, so we would not expect any rational reader to agree, either. What we do hope, is that readers will think for themselves, and at least be better informed of the issues, events, and values that our citizen journalists work hard to provide for free.. We automate much of the tasks so that our sources' content gets as much exposure as possible. We encourage constructive discussion & debate. The solution is more free speech, not less.​

  • Front Page
  • Oklahoma News
    • Oklahoma Reports
    • OCPAC
    • Oklahoma Constitution News
    • Citizen of the Year
    • Oklahoma History
    • Today, In History
    • Oklahoma Center Square
    • Faked Out Sports
    • AP Wire
    • NewsBreak Oklahoma
    • Inside the Capitol
    • Lawton Rocks
    • Muskogee Now
    • OSU Sports
  • Podcasts
  • SPTV
    • Fresh Black Coffee, with Eddie Huff
    • AircraftSparky
    • Red River TV
    • Oklahoma TV
    • E PLURIBUS OTAP
    • Tapp's Common Sense
  • Editorial
    • From the Editor
    • Weekend Report
    • 3D Politics
    • Reagan Speaks
  • Sooner Issues
    • Corruption Chronicle
    • Constitutional Grounds
    • State Groups
  • Sooner Analysts
    • OCPA
    • Muskogee Politico
    • Rooke Report
    • SoonerPoll
    • Everett Piper
    • Andrew Spiropoulos
    • Tulsa Devil's Advocate
    • Eddie Huff & Friends
    • 1889 Institute
    • Steve Byas
    • Michael Bates
    • Steve Fair
    • Josh Lewis
    • Tulsa Today
    • OK2A
    • Dr. Jim Meehan
    • AFP Oklahoma
    • Sooner Tea Party
  • Nation
    • Bongino Report
    • Breitbart News
    • Daily wire
    • Steven Crowder
    • InfoWars News
    • Jeff Davis
    • Alex Lains
    • The F1rst
    • Nigel Farage
    • NewsMax
    • America's Voice
    • Ron Paul Institute
    • Bill Gertz
    • Emerald
    • Just the News
    • Trey Gowdy
    • Fox Politics
    • National Commentary
  • Wit & Whimsy
    • Libs of Tiktok
    • It's Still The Law
    • Terrence Williams
    • Witty Cartoons
    • Will Rogers Said
    • Steeple Chasers
    • The Partisan
    • Satire
  • SoonerPolitics.org